klumb15

Wrong. A turbocharger will increase the overall efficiency of a motor. A turbo motor will always be more efficient than a N/A motor assuming the power output is identical.

Donutz

you are wrong......you my want to take it up with isaac newton

klumb15

Ok, you're right. It's easier for an engine to scavenge it's intake air opposed to forcing it down it's throat. Forcing air into a motor increases combustion efficiency, there is no way around it. Do you think the auto companies are putting turbos on motors just for the fun of it? The only time a forced induction motor appears to be less efficient than a NA motor is during situations that cause a massive amount of heat to be generated in the compression of the intake air. In order to combat these high temperatures, a combination of intercooling and additional fuel is needed to keep the motor from melting down. However, the perceived reduction of efficiency isn't due to the turbo, it's due to the safe guards put in place to save the motor.

Donutz

oh man...you really dont know what u are talking about. do you have any training in engineering or even physics 101 for that matter? do you even know what an intercooler is? look, please dont pass yourself off as someone of knowledge because you really dont know.....i am sorry if my posts are more pointed but i am really tired of people on these threads posting information that is so far from fact is isnt funny. for the record.....turbo engines are designed to give the efficiency of a smaller engine when they are unloaded.......when they are under boost and more power is demanded, all bets are off.......

mastertinner

Pull a 31' 11'6" tall tt weighing in the low to mid 8000lb range. I get about 10.5mpg@ 55mph, 9.5 @ 65, and about 8.7 @ 72. One day the truck netted me about 11.2 on a 40 mile trip on country roads going 55mph.

jml79

I am seeing numbers that are more than 10% worse than my V8. My back ground is aircraft and it's very common (and a source of great argument) to use rich mixtures to cool the combustion chamber at high loads. A side effect of this is a large amount carbon coming out of the exhaust. Is it possible that the Eco is dumping fuel at high loads to keep things working cool. Boost is an amazing thing but 365 HP is a lot to ask of 3.5 litres. Diesel engines accomplish the same thing by running extremely lean all the time. The excess air cools the combustion chamber while being much less expensive than gas.

Any thoughts on this contributing to the towing fuel mileage of the EB?

Mark Miller

Back to the original post,he said he had it in Tow Haul.Doesn't that keep the Torque Converter from locking up?And will it shift into overdrive in Tow Haul mode?If no on both maybe that's why he only got 6.6 mpg towing.

Later Mark.

engineermike

The Ecoboost runs stoichiometric at all but the highest loads. At very high loads, it richens up to around 12/1, just like any other gasoline engine.

Diesel fuel has some fundamental differences vs gasoline, namely, stable combustion at extremely lean a/f ratio's. Gasoline does not maintain stable combustion at a/f ratio's much leaner than stoichiometric, making it impossible to cool the cylinder with excess air.

SkiSmuggs

I always use Tow/Haul and get about 10mpg towing a 12' high, 8500lb fifth wheel at 60mph, using 91/93 octane. I tried towing with 89 octane and got 9.5.

reward69

For all us dumb ***** rednecks out there it takes fuel air and fire to make power. The more power you make the more fuel and air is needed no matter the displacement or configuration, forced or natural.

Efficiency in how it makes it is another story as posted by engineermike.